The last time I felt I was living through tines as 'intersting' as these was in 2008. Everything felt toxic then. Finding causes for hope in the midst of chaos was demanding. And it's the same now.
Let me be unambiguous. Britain is in crisis. And this time I am not even sure we are capable of getting out of it. With more than ten per cent of the the Brexit negotiating period elapsed I now realise we have no hope of concluding an agreement with the EU. In March that may have been possible. Now, I don't think so for many reasons.
We may, just about have a government, but it is apparently incapable of negotiating a confidence and supply agreement with a political party with whom it supposedly has close sympathy.
The Chancellor appears to be in open conflict with Number 10 on Brexit.
The PM has failed a public test, again, being apparently unable to talk to the residents of North Kensington.
Her manifesto will have been stripped bare by the time it reaches the Queen's Speech.
The chance that fifteen Brexit laws might progress through parliament is zero.
Boris Johnson is toxic. Amber Rudd can't hold her seat in the inevitable election to come. And I met Damian Green, our new First Secretary of State, skulking in the Archduke at Waterloo last night (an old lefty plotting ground) and he too seemed incredibly reluctant to engage with the public, but I assure you, I tried.
And all of this matters. First that is because May's credibility is draining away by the day.
Second it is because the Tories have no credible alternative to her.
Third it is because the Brexit negotiation time period is fast disappearing with nothing happening, and no chance of anything this government says being agreed by the Commons, especially given the fractured state of the Tory party.
Fourth, our economy is declining, and that will get worse the closer we get to Brexit, especially if that is likely to be chaotic.
Fifth, it matters because it is hard to see a way out of this. Parliament hardly sits for the next four months: May could continue as a lame duck for an extended period as a result and the evidence is now clear that she is far too out of touch with reality to appreciate that she might have a duty to do something about this. And if her rump of a government lasts until the Autumn getting a general election in before Christmas will be hard.
By then Brexit negotiations will be beyond the possibility of anything being salvaged unless we accept any terms offered by the EU without seeking to make any amendments. So much for taking back control: we'll literally be reduced to begging for favours and hoping that they might be granted.
And by the end of this year the toxicity of Brexit will be apparent. Britian will have by then been reduced to an ungovernend laughing stock. Prices will be rising. Wages will be falling. Interest rates may be up - which is a shock many mortgage holders will never have known. The reality that Brexit will mean falling living standards and a simple loss of freedoms - like going on holiday without having to really worry about health insurance - will have hit home very hard.
Of course I could say that the answer to all this is a Labour government. And in many ways it is. But that may be too late for Brexit, and not just because Labour also seems without a clear plan right now: there may not any more be enough time left for Labour to negotiate a way out of this mess.
So I really do think we are in crisis. In 2008 bailing out the banks, injecting money into the economy and starting QE was already performing miracles within 18 months of the crisis hitting: we were heading back to growth until George Osborne arrived on the scene.
In 18 months time from now there is no such prospect of a happy ending unless some very serious thinking begins now on how to save the day,
First, let me be clear that I am not proposing a grand coalition to solve this problem: the Tories got us into it and few of them have any qualification to help get us out of it.
But I am suggesting some unusual coalitions do need to be created to deliver the message that given what is happening Brexit can now only be a disaster and that action to avert that disaster is needed. Aversion may be a Norwegian style deal to honour the referendum,
although I know many say that is not possible. In that case Macrom's offer to withdraw Article 50 may be the only way forward. Those are the only two options I now think we can hope for.
Who can call for this? Sadiq Khan could for London. The SNP, Greens, Lib Dems and Plaid all could. I hope Andy Burnham might for Mancester. I even hope some Tories might. And it would be for Labour - as the only likely next party of government - to respond to thus crisis.
I know that a Norwegian style deal is not optimal. But it does not deny us soft power. And it does provide some extra freedoms and an honouring of the referendum result. As such it is the only viable option bar asking to be allowed back in that I can see.
I am hoping that wise minds might realise that given the crisis we face this might be the only way forward. I am looking for those with the political capital to take the risk to call for this outcome. It might be the only route to some sort of viable future we now have, how gross has been the Tory mismanagement of almost every issue surrounding Brexit, and so much else.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
2008?: The recession officially began in November 2007 iirc. The queues at Northern Rock and the bailout ( or implicit bailout by guaranteeing the mega depositors above £30k ) occurred in 2007 also.
The crisis hit in 2008
Indeed. Labour trying to lead a minority Government now would be disastrous. This is the Tories mess and they have to clean it up, and if that means they split in the process then all the better.
Sooner or later, one of them is going to have to explain to the public that a Hard Brexit is disastrous and a soft Brexit politically undeliverable. The best option by far was the status quo.
May is utterly delusional. Seems to be pursuing something relentlessly which has support only from the very hardest of thinking.
The big risk is from Farage. Or another right wing bully still to come.
I don’t see Brexit as the main thing-the main thing for this country now will be:
The recognition of monetary sovereignty ( sod-Lisbon/Maastricht)
The creation of jobs and training
Renationalisation where leaving the EU will HELP:
‘Undoubtedly EU law will be a huge obstacle to any renationalisation scheme — especially one that aims to do away with competition and markets. The EU is clear that its objective is “Opening up national freight and passenger markets to cross-border competition”. Its directives and regulations have created what can only be described as a legal quagmire.’ (Kate Hoey)
Building of significant amounts of social housing to help end the 40 year rentiers’ paradise. Get LVT on the agenda (in the manifesto)
An election soon – May has to go she has NO credibility.
Build a narrative that explains how the last 40 years of monetarism and neo-liberalism has been an extended scam.
Green infrastructure-training jobs/ energy options
The Tories need to admit that the ponzi shceme of the last 40 years is over, they have ripped the crap out of the country, belittled its citizens and taken the piss supported by a craven and vile media-the party is over-either form a Government in the national interest or go.
There is no-one to lead the Tories. The grotesque buffoon Johnson revealed his vacuous opportunism during the referendum when he plucked meaningless numbers from his arse. Rudd is associated with the discredited May and the ‘magic money tree’ nonsense and nearly lost her seat. I can’t think of anyone with a scintilla of credibility.
The Trust in Corbyn increases Daily and has already reversed the credibility ratings that she had merely weeks ago. Never has a manufactured , bogus image, dissolved so fast, she is now merely a power-dressed wax-work.
Let’s get ready for the next election and leave the last 40 years to be seen as a ‘laboratory experiment’ mixed with distasteful eugenics and debt-slavery.
On the subject of railways and the EU, this is all backwards. There are many European countries where, to all intents and purposes, the state runs a large part of the services as well as the infrastructure, and this is managed in compliance with EU law. The irony is that they manage to accommodate open access operators: it is the UK which has had to be constrained by European law into doing the same. Given a free hand, the DfT would have got shot of them, and killed the concept altogether, seeing them as an impediment to its ability to reclaim money from profitable routes (which, of course, are the ones where open access operators want to run.) The OAOs have done a great job of transforming service provision to areas of the country largely ignored by the franchises, although where the responsibility lies for that is an interesting question: another in a long list of ironies is that the private operators of franchises now enjoy FAR less autonomy and commercial freedom than ever BR did.
To add to Macron’s reminder to rhe public that the door is still open:
Wolfgang Schäuble: EU door remains open to UK
Guy Verhofstadt to UK: You can stay in EU, but lose perks
I am very worried at what Verhofstadt has said about a ‘new door’ without previous rebates etc. If we actually rejoined on the same terms as existing members then we would be forced to join the euro wouldn’t we?
Am I reading this wrong?
That is why it has to be Norway
You wouldn’t be forced to join the euro, many EU states don’t use the euro, Poland, Sweden etc.
It obviously wouldn’t be acceptable in the UK and I’d imagine the EU would understand this. We also may not meet the requirements for joining the single currency.
“We also may not meet the requirements for joining the single currency”
Thank God for that.
John,
IIRC, Poland and Sweden joined before that requirement was introduced.
The EU may not care if it’s acceptable or not. As Verhofstadt says in that article, apparently it’s OK for them to change our membership terms even if we don’t actually leave. He only mentions the rebate which is fine, I don’t care about that (and it would some delicious scahdenfreude to see the rage from people like Farage), but the implication is that our opt-out on the Euro would also be in jeopardy.
I voted Remain, but I would not vote to rejoin/rescind Article 50 if we will be forced to adopt the Euro. I do not believe a state should give up a fiat currency and leave itself at the mercy of the European Central Bank if things go wrong further down the line, without simultaneously joining a political union and/or where the ECB functions as a central bank in the way the Bank of England currently does for us. Monetary sovereignty is one of the most important pieces of sovereignty a country has.
The commitment to the Euro is to join
The commitment is not dated
Despite my obvious shortcomings as a metallurgist I attest to the fact that the end of current capitalist model officially ended in 2008 and has been on life support ever since.
So Richard is right.
https://www.theguardian.com › Business › Lehman Brothers
https://www.theguardian.com › Business › Lehman Brothers
On the positive side … “ordo ab chao”.
…or should that be chao ab orbo. ?
My May word of the month was agnotology. My June word is zugswang (from Simon Wren-Lewis’s blog yesterday) – it is a position in chess where no matter what you do makes things worse. The Torys are in this unenviable position. At the risk of self promotion this is discussed further in my Progressive Pulse article today http://www.progressivepulse.org/brexit/where-to-now-with-brexit/
Great post Sean
NB zugzwang (z not s)
“Zugzwang”, if you don’t mind. To be in Zugzwang is to be in a position where, if you could only pass for a move, everything would be fine. But, passing not being allowed in chess, you must move and ruin your position. Mostly happens in the endgame with only kings and pawns on the board. Which might be appropriate to the matter at hand…
“Zugzwang” in German, but it has been anglicised (also Frenchified, ‘Italicised’ and others) to “zugzwang” (without the capital) and indeed Russified (albeit into Cyrillic which also adopts the convention of lower case ‘ts’). Of course, it’s “Zugzwang” for the titles of several motion pictures and at least one English language novel. Apologies if you now know more than you ever wanted to about zugzwang.
“Britian will have by then been reduced to an ungovernend laughing stock” In fairness Belgium had no government for a year or so quite recently. That said it was not leaving the EU.
One of the problems with staying in the EU is the gov deficit rule of 3%. Not sure how this would impact on the Green New Deal. Of course if the UK stayed in the EU it could always just fold its arms and declare that it was not going to respect an artificial limit. What could the EU do? Commission would throw its toys around & doubtless would run to mummy (aka ECJ in Luxy), the Euro fudge machine would kick into action and a solution found. Schauble would pull a face.
As for losing perks. Maybe, but the Uk has played the EU game badly in the past (theoretically no local content rules – try telling that to France) & needs to up its act if it stays.
Oddly, & based on internal info – Corbyn and his manifesto is heading in very much the direction that the EU/EC wants to travel – e.g. large scale energy rennovation of housing. Main difference: EU/EC wants to mobilise pension funds to provide the money – UK/Corbyn wants gov funds. There is probably a middle route – no reason why there could not be mixed – although gov’ financing is likely to be cheaper.
Pension funds can buy the bonds….
That’s my solution
I was listening to a talk by Yanis Varoufakis yesterday where he said the first two states to violate the 3% rule were France and Germany. The implication was they suffered no consequences, but when southern Europe ran into trouble, the French and Germans used the rules as a club to hypocritically beat them with.
Sad truth is no politician or patty can go back on Brexit until a majority of the public accept that it will be disastrous. Unfortunately by the time this happens it may be too late to avoid a deep recession and too late to get back the EU deal we just gave up.
There is also the ever present danger of Farage stepping in before the public fully wake up and leading us further astray. Breitbart et al are not defeated, their victory could be just around the corner.
Labour is an imperfect solution but the only one available.
The Norwegian solution is not going back on Brexit
Richard – it is true Norwegian model is still Brexit. However the likes of Farage, Breitbart and the Daily Mail won’t hesitate to jump on the fact the Norwegian model still allows freedom of movement.
You’re right, it is probably the only option now but it is still fraught with danger.
Idiots who want to harm the wellbeing of the people of this country have to be faced down
Amen to facing down the idiots.
If you were not in the EU is it a club you would want to join?
A totally irrelevant question
Let me rephrase. We may now be in the worst of all worlds – but is maintaining any element of EU membership something to be desired? I suggest that it is not, partly because of the issues faced by rEU.
I completely disagree
You may want the people of the UK to suffer considerably for your dogmatism
I do not
I am wholly aware of the EU’s flaws
But the alternative is vastly worse at so many, many levels
Not dogmatism. A difference of opinion. I believe continued membership of the EU is a worse option than complete disengagement (because of the enormous problems facing rEU).
However I have complete confidence that UK politicians will engineer a third option even worse than staying or leaving!
In additional to full membership of the single market, don’t forget that Turkey is in the Customs Union.
There’s no shortage of things to worry about. The Bank of England forecasts rising costs of living – and rising costs for businesses – but zero wage inflation.
They are modelling an economy in which there is no bargaining power whatsoever for the working population, and they are probably right. That’s…. Worrying, when the bottom decile has (to use a euphemism) a calorie deficit.
Deeply worrying
Is there any difference between a Norway and Swiss style arrangement with Europe?
Yes
Norwegian model much more integrated
The requirements for Article 50 say it must be in accordance with the constitution of the member state.
So we could certainly rescind the UK’s invocation of article 50.
The logic would be, when we get a stable government – which would probably be Labour – to hold a binding referendum on in or out.
We’ve had a year of discussion now with the lies now realised. It would have to be a simple ‘shit or bust’.
(With me hoping there are enough to see the folly of leaving and also hoping there are enough in the EU to see that a reform programme is needed.)
I share your hope
https://aluation.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/coercive-aggregation-vs-primitive-accumulation/ This is well worth a read, written by a US doctoral candidate in 2011 it seems to me very prescient to the current impasse.
The Duchess of Sutherland, on seeing the starving tenants on her husband’s estate, remarked in a letter to a friend in England, “Scotch people are of happier constitution and do not fatten like the larger breed of animals.”[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Leveson-Gower,_Duchess_of_Sutherland
This on Ideology from Zizek.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/07/zizeck-as-shit-hits-fan-brexcrement-or.html
“In 2008 bailing out the banks, injecting money into the economy and starting QE was already performing miracles within 18 months of the crisis hitting” Yep, a great strategy, throw money at those who caused the crisis, enabling them to rebuild their bonuses, then use the magic money tree to throw more dosh at those already rich through investments and to hell with the poor, those in debt, those dispossessed, those whose wages have stagnated for the past 30 years or more and pave the way for the lie that public expenditure was to blame and the savage cuts which even yesterday in the FT Macpherson, the great Treasury guru, (now thankfully gone) says we mustn’t fall out of love with austerity.
There were other options to “save the world” but when you ask a cabal of criminals over a pizza how to deal with the crisis then surprise surprise they all say “give us the money”.
Which is why I proposed People’s Quantitative Easing as an alternative